Abstract
Juvenile dermatomyositis (JDM) is a rare, often chronic autoimmune disease with onset during childhood. It is characterized by weakness in proximal muscles and pathognomonic skin rashes. Although the etiology remains unclear, it has been proposed that JDM is caused by a vasculopathy within the muscle tissue and multiple other organ systems of genetically susceptible individuals, possibly in response to environmental triggers. The goals of treatment include control of the underlying inflammatory myositis and prevention and/or treatment of complications (eg, contractures and calcinosis). Delayed treatment may lead to poorer outcome in terms of disease course and calcinosis. The course in JDM is variable. Monocyclic disease occurs in about one third of patients. These patients have a good response to standard therapy. Early recognition and aggressive immunosuppressive treatment result in improved prognosis.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: • Of importance •• Of major importance
McCann LJ et al. The Juvenile Dermatomyositis National Registry and Repository (UK and Ireland)—clinical characteristics of children recruited within the first 5 yr. Rheumatology (Oxford). 2006;45(10):1255–60.
Symmons DP, Sills JA, Davis SM. The incidence of juvenile dermatomyositis: results from a nation-wide study. Br J Rheumatol. 1995;34(8):732–6.
Mendez EP et al. US incidence of juvenile dermatomyositis, 1995–1998: results from the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases Registry. Arthritis Rheum. 2003;49(3):300–5.
Compeyrot-Lacassagne S, Feldman BM. Inflammatory myopathies in children. Pediatr Clin North Am. 2005;52(2):493–520. vi–vii.
Ramanan AV, Feldman BM. Clinical features and outcomes of juvenile dermatomyositis and other childhood onset myositis syndromes. Rheum Dis Clin North Am. 2002;28(4):833–57.
Reed AM, Pachman L, Ober C. Molecular genetic studies of major histocompatibility complex genes in children with juvenile dermatomyositis: increased risk associated with HLA-DQA1 *0501. Hum Immunol. 1991;32(4):235–40.
Mamyrova G et al. Immunogenetic risk and protective factors for juvenile dermatomyositis in Caucasians. Arthritis Rheum. 2006;54(12):3979–87.
Pachman LM et al. Increased frequency of HLA-B8 in juvenile dermatomyositis. Lancet. 1977;2(8050):1238.
Pachman LM et al. TNFalpha-308A allele in juvenile dermatomyositis: association with increased production of tumor necrosis factor alpha, disease duration, and pathologic calcifications. Arthritis Rheum. 2000;43(10):2368–77.
Rider LG et al. Polymorphisms in the IL-1 receptor antagonist gene VNTR are possible risk factors for juvenile idiopathic inflammatory myopathies. Clin Exp Immunol. 2000;121(1):47–52.
Massa M et al. Self epitopes shared between human skeletal myosin and Streptococcus pyogenes M5 protein are targets of immune responses in active juvenile dermatomyositis. Arthritis Rheum. 2002;46(11):3015–25.
Pachman LM et al. History of infection before the onset of juvenile dermatomyositis: results from the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases Research Registry. Arthritis Rheum. 2005;53(2):166–72.
Manlhiot C et al. Assessment of an infectious disease history preceding juvenile dermatomyositis symptom onset. Rheumatology (Oxford). 2008;47(4):526–9.
Khanna S, Reed AM. Immunopathogenesis of juvenile dermatomyositis. Muscle Nerve. 2010;41(5):581–92.
Li CK et al. MHC Class I overexpression on muscles in early juvenile dermatomyositis. J Rheumatol. 2004;31(3):605–9.
• Niewold TB et al. Elevated serum interferon-alpha activity in juvenile dermatomyositis: associations with disease activity at diagnosis and after thirty-six months of therapy. Arthritis Rheum. 2009;60(6):1815–24. This study examined serum IFN-α activity in a cohort of children with JDM to determine relationships between IFN-α and indicators of disease activity and severity. Serum IFN-α activity was associated with higher serum levels of muscle-derived enzymes and a shorter duration of untreated disease in patients with newly diagnosed JDM, and was inversely correlated with measures of chronic disease activity at 36 months after diagnosis.
Greenberg SA. Dermatomyositis and type 1 interferons. Curr Rheumatol Rep. 2010;12(3):198–203.
• Bilgic H et al. Interleukin-6 and type I interferon-regulated genes and chemokines mark disease activity in dermatomyositis. Arthritis Rheum. 2009;60(11):3436–46. This study evaluated the capacity of IFN-dependent peripheral blood gene and chemokine signatures and levels of proinflammatory cytokines to serve as biomarkers for disease activity in adult DM and JDM. Serum IL-6 production and the type 1 IFN gene signature were found to be candidate biomarkers for disease activity in adult DM and JDM.
Bohan A, Peter JB. Polymyositis and dermatomyositis (first of two parts). N Engl J Med. 1975;292(7):344–7.
Brown VE et al. An international consensus survey of the diagnostic criteria for juvenile dermatomyositis (JDM). Rheumatology (Oxford). 2006;45(8):990–3.
Tse S et al. The arthritis of inflammatory childhood myositis syndromes. J Rheumatol. 2001;28(1):192–7.
Akikusa JD et al. Eye findings in patients with juvenile dermatomyositis. J Rheumatol. 2005;32(10):1986–91.
Cook CD, Rosen FS, Banker BQ. Dermatomyositis and Focal Scleroderma. Pediatr Clin North Am. 1963;10:979–1016.
Schmeling H, et al. Nailfold capillary density is importantly associated over time with muscle and skin disease activity in juvenile dermatomyositis. Rheumatology (Oxford). 2010. doi:10.1093/rheumatology/keq407.
Smith RL et al. Skin involvement in juvenile dermatomyositis is associated with loss of end row nailfold capillary loops. J Rheumatol. 2004;31(8):1644–9.
Feldman BM et al. Nailfold capillaries as indicators of disease activity in juvenile idiopathic inflammatory myopathies (JIIM). Arthritis Rheum. 1999;42(9):S181.
Spencer CH et al. Course of treated juvenile dermatomyositis. J Pediatr. 1984;105(3):399–408.
Huber AM et al. Medium- and long-term functional outcomes in a multicenter cohort of children with juvenile dermatomyositis. Arthritis Rheum. 2000;43(3):541–9.
Blane CE et al. Patterns of calcification in childhood dermatomyositis. Am J Roentgenol. 1984;142(2):397–400.
Bowyer SL et al. Childhood dermatomyositis: factors predicting functional outcome and development of dystrophic calcification. J Pediatr. 1983;103(6):882–8.
Huemer C et al. Lipodystrophy in patients with juvenile dermatomyositis—evaluation of clinical and metabolic abnormalities. J Rheumatol. 2001;28(3):610–5.
Rouster-Stevens KA et al. Pharmacokinetic study of oral prednisolone compared with intravenous methylprednisolone in patients with juvenile dermatomyositis. Arthritis Rheum. 2008;59(2):222–6.
Pachman LM, Cooke N. Juvenile dermatomyositis: a clinical and immunologic study. J Pediatr. 1980;96(2):226–34.
Euwer RL, Sontheimer RD. Amyopathic dermatomyositis: a review. J Invest Dermatol. 1993;100(1):124S–7S.
•• Stringer E, et al. Treatment approaches to juvenile dermatomyositis (JDM) across North America: The Childhood Arthritis and Rheumatology Research Alliance (CARRA) JDM Treatment Survey. J Rheumatol. 2010;37(9):1953–1961. This study assessed the therapeutic approaches of North American pediatric rheumatologists to inform future studies of therapy in JDM. For most North American pediatric rheumatologists, corticosteroids and methotrexate appear to be the standard of care for typical cases of JDM. There is variability, however, in the route of administration of corticosteroids and use of IVIG and hydroxychloroquine.
•• Huber AM, et al. Protocols for the initial treatment of moderately severe juvenile dermatomyositis: results of a Children’s Arthritis and Rheumatology Research Alliance Consensus Conference. Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken). 2010;62(2):219–25. This study used JDM survey data and expert opinion to develop a small number of consensus treatment protocols that reflect current initial treatment of moderately severe JDM. Three protocols that described the first 2 months of treatment were developed. All protocols included corticosteroids and methotrexate.
Ramanan AV et al. The effectiveness of treating juvenile dermatomyositis with methotrexate and aggressively tapered corticosteroids. Arthritis Rheum. 2005;52(11):3570–8.
Seshadri R et al. The role of aggressive corticosteroid therapy in patients with juvenile dermatomyositis: a propensity score analysis. Arthritis Rheum. 2008;59(7):989–95.
Dalakas MC et al. A controlled trial of high-dose intravenous immune globulin infusions as treatment for dermatomyositis. N Engl J Med. 1993;329(27):1993–2000.
Pullenayegum EM et al. Fitting marginal structural models: estimating covariate-treatment associations in the reweighted data set can guide model fitting. J Clin Epidemiol. 2008;61(9):875–81.
(PRINTO), P.R.I.N.T.O. Juvenile Dermatomyositis Trial. 2010 cited; Available from: http://www.printo.it/project_ongoing_detail.asp?ProjectID=14.
Riley P et al. Intravenous cyclophosphamide pulse therapy in juvenile dermatomyositis. A review of efficacy and safety. Rheumatology (Oxford). 2004;43(4):491–6.
Riley P et al. Effectiveness of infliximab in the treatment of refractory juvenile dermatomyositis with calcinosis. Rheumatology (Oxford). 2008;47(6):877–80.
Cooper MA et al. Rituximab for the treatment of juvenile dermatomyositis: a report of four pediatric patients. Arthritis Rheum. 2007;56(9):3107–11.
Oddis CV et al. Rituximab in the treatment of refractory adult and juvenile dermatomyositis (DM) and adult polymyositis (PM) - The RIM study. Arthritis Rheum. 2010;62(10)Suppl.
Rouster-Stevens K. A., et al. Mycophenolate mofetil: A possible therapeutic agent for children with juvenile dermatomyositis. Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken). 2010;62(10):1446–51.
Hassan J, van der Net JJ, van Royen-Kerkhof A. Treatment of refractory juvenile dermatomyositis with tacrolimus. Clin Rheumatol. 2008;27(11):1469–71.
Olson NY, Lindsley CB. Adjunctive use of hydroxychloroquine in childhood dermatomyositis. J Rheumatol. 1989;16(12):1545–7.
Ruperto N et al. Preliminary core sets of measures for disease activity and damage assessment in juvenile systemic lupus erythematosus and juvenile dermatomyositis. Rheumatology (Oxford). 2003;42(12):1452–9.
Miller FW et al. Proposed preliminary core set measures for disease outcome assessment in adult and juvenile idiopathic inflammatory myopathies. Rheumatology (Oxford). 2001;40(11):1262–73.
•• Rider, L.G., et al. Validation of manual muscle testing and a subset of eight muscles for adult and juvenile idiopathic inflammatory myopathies. Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken). 2010;62(4):465–72. This study validated MMT for strength assessment in JDM and adult DM and polymyositis. Consensus was reached to use a subset of eight muscles (neck flexors, deltoids, biceps, wrist extensors, gluteus maximus and medius, quadriceps, and ankle dorsiflexors) that performed as well as the total and proximal MMT, and had good face validity and ease of assessment.
Huber AM et al. Validation and clinical significance of the Childhood Myositis Assessment Scale for assessment of muscle function in the juvenile idiopathic inflammatory myopathies. Arthritis Rheum. 2004;50(5):1595–603.
Huber AM et al. Validation of the Childhood Health Assessment Questionnaire in the juvenile idiopathic myopathies. Juvenile Dermatomyositis Disease Activity Collaborative Study Group. J Rheumatol. 2001;28(5):1106–11.
• Rider LG et al. Damage extent and predictors in adult and juvenile dermatomyositis and polymyositis as determined with the myositis damage index. Arthritis Rheum. 2009;60(11):3425–35. This study validated the MDI in juvenile and adult myositis, described the degree and types of damage, and developed predictors of damage. Damage was found to be common in myositis after a median duration of 5 years in patients with adult-onset disease and 6.8 years in patients with juvenile-onset disease. The MDI has good content, construct, and predictive validity in juvenile and adult myositis.
•• Ruperto, N. et al. The pediatric rheumatology international trials organization provisional criteria for the evaluation of response to therapy in juvenile dermatomyositis. Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken). 2010;62(11):1533–41. This study developed a provisional definition for the evaluation of response to therapy in JDM based on the PRINTO JDM core set of variables. The top definition of improvement was at least 20% improvement from baseline in three of six core set variables, with no more than one of the remaining worsening by more than 30% (which cannot be muscle strength).
Stringer E, Singh-Grewal D, Feldman BM. Predicting the course of juvenile dermatomyositis: significance of early clinical and laboratory features. Arthritis Rheum. 2008;58(11):3585–92.
•• Ravelli, A. et al, Long-term outcome and prognostic factors of juvenile dermatomyositis: a multinational, multicenter study of 490 patients. Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken). 2010;62(1): p. 63–72. This study investigated the long-term outcome and prognostic factors of JDM through a multinational, multicenter study. Many patients had continued disease activity and cumulative damage at follow-up. A chronic course was the strongest predictor of poor prognosis. These findings highlight the need for treatment strategies that enable better control of disease activity over time and the reduction of nonreversible damage.
Sanner H, et al. Long-term muscular outcome and predisposing and prognostic factors in juvenile dermatomyositis: A case-control study. Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken). 2010;62(8):1103–11
Disclosure
No potential conflicts of interest relevant to this article were reported.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Batthish, M., Feldman, B.M. Juvenile Dermatomyositis. Curr Rheumatol Rep 13, 216–224 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11926-011-0167-9
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11926-011-0167-9